SPE 72160
Reservoir Characterization - Integrated Interpretation of Borehole Data
and Surface Seismic Data
H. Cao, T. Endo, H. Yamamoto and D. Cao, Schlumberger
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–9 October 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Precise reservoir characterization is of primary importance to
reservoir evaluation and optimization. Effective integration of
borehole and surface seismic data is the key to achieve this
objective. However, such an integration is well known to be a
complex task due to various difficulties, e.g. different
resolutions between well data and seismic.
In this paper, we show an integrated workflow in which
borehole data and surface seismic data are integrated for
reservoir characterization. The workflow consists of three
steps as follow:
1. Formation evaluation. Accurate petrophysical evaluation
of well logs with other borehole data is carried out to
build a petrophysical model that describes formation
composition, lithology and fluid type.
2. Fluid substitution and AVO modeling. This establishes
the link between the seismic responses and petrophysical
parameters. Borehole seismic data provide the calibration
for the sonic data, and also the input for the anisotropic
and inelastic effects. Fluid substitution investigates the
effects of pore fluids on the propagation speeds of waves.
AVO modeling generates offset dependent seismic
responses for the models of interest with known
petrophysical parameters.
3. Seismic classification. Knowledge extrapolation is
performed to populate the seismic volumes or sections
with the calibrated AVO response obtained at the well
location. A geostatistical and neural network analysis
establishes the relationship between the seismic attributes
and formation properties (lithofacies, porosity,
permeability, pore fluids, etc) at the well location. The
quantified knowledge between formation parameters and
seismic response at the well location is exported to the
rest of the seismic data (2D sections and/or 3D seismic
volumes).
This workflow will reveal if there is enough acoustic
difference between different lithofacies for them to be
distinguished from seismic data. When there is sufficient
acoustic difference between different lithofacies, the
distribution and variation of these lithofacies can be tracked
using the seismic data.
It can provide direct hydrocarbon indicators for the
optimization of well locations. When the acoustic impedance
difference between different fluids in the formation is large
enough to be captured by AVO analysis, direct hydrocarbon
detection is possible and the well locations can be optimized.
This integrated approach adds tremendous value to the
existing data and shows what is needed for future data
acquisition.
Introduction
Formation and reservoir evaluation is one of the prime
objectives in a drilling program. This has traditionally been
achieved through the petrophysical interpretation of well
measurements such as wireline and LWD logs. The
petrophysical interpretation, calibrated with well sampling and
testing results, provides extremely valuable information about
the subsurface.
Through the interpretation of the kinematic information, the
surface seismic has been mainly used as a mapping tool. The
quantitative interpretation, using both the kinematic and
dynamic properties, has recently made some significant
progress. With this advancement, the distribution and variation
of reservoir parameters are accurately quantified.
2 H. CAO, T. ENDO, H. YAMAMOTO, D. CAO SPE 72160

Reservoir parameters such as porosity, saturation and pore customize the formation model to match the local mineralogy
pressure are known to have a significant and distinguished to produce a more accurate representation of the rock, both in
correlation with the seismic parameters such as compressional terms of lithology and petrophysical properties.
and shear velocities, AVO (Gregory, Ref. 1; Murphy et al.,
Ref. 2; Castagna & Swan, Ref. 3; Pedersen et al., Ref. 4; and
Mavko, Ref. 5). The quantitative seismic interpretation can be
significantly improved by the integration of the petrophysical
results (Castagna, Ref. 6; Ross, Ref. 7).

This paper describes the workflow of an integration method in

which the seismic attributes are linked to the fluid contents in
the reservoir.

Petrophysical interpretation of well logs

The petrophysical interpretation of well logs is to compute the
volumes of different minerals and fluids in the formation.
Additional calculations will produce desired formation
properties such as effective porosity and permeability. Figure 2 ELAN interpretation of logging data in comparison with
core data

Figure 2 shows a section of the ELAN interpretation of

t v logging data. It derived the volumetric composition of
composition minerals, porosity, fluid contents and etc.

t=Rv In addition, ELAN allows multiple models, parameter

calibration, and reconstructed logs.

R
Figure 1 Petrophysical model: t stands for tool response vector, R
for response parameter matrix and v for formation volume vector.

Figure 1 graphically shows how the tool responses are related

to the volumes of different minerals and fluids via the
response parameter matrix. When a number of tool responses
are available, a system of linear equations is formed. The
volumes of different minerals and fluids may then be obtained
by the inversion of this linear system. The system can be
under-determined, determined and over-determined.
Therefore, several approaches can be used to obtain a solution
for the system. ELAN∗, an abbreviation of “ELemental
ANalysis”, is the methodology developed by Schlumberger.

ELAN provides quantitative formation evaluation level-by-
level. It is an optimized simultaneous equation solver, a
universal solver with only very general pre-defined
constraints. ELAN provides a general framework for building
multiple formation models. It evaluates both open and cased
hole logs, allows entry of core data, and has multi-well
capability. One of the main benefits of ELAN is the ability to
∗
Mark of Schlumberger
Fig. 3 Multiple ELAN Models - two solve models being combined
into a combined model.
Figure 3 illustrates the combination of two solution models
into one final model. When different sets of logs or different
assumptions of mineral properties are input to ELAN,
different sets of solution models are obtained. These different
models are combined to form a final solution model with the
SPE 72160 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION - INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION OF BOREHOLE DATA AND SURFACE SEISMIC DATA 3

knowledge of local geology, formation sampling and testing Figure 4 illustrates the gas saturation evaluation using sonic
results. slownesses with an ELAN model. The wet and dry slowness
Multiple models allow curves are shown as a reference. The apparent pore fluid
modulus is obtained from Biot-Gassmann equation and is
• experimentation and direct comparisons converted to saturation based on the assumed mixing law.
• a robust solution of under-determined cases and complex
geology
• diagnostic models (i.e. wet models w/o hydrocarbon and
conductivity)

Once an ELAN interpretation is made, synthetic logs can be

generated from the solution model. Reconstructed logs allow
for better quality control and parameter adjustment.

ELAN encourages external input in the building of

interpretation models as opposed to the traditional “black box”
approaches.

Fluid Substitution
Fluid substitution is to investigate the effects of pore fluids on
propagation speeds of waves. The analysis substitutes known
fluids, such as gas, oil and water, for the original pore contents
in the formation, and computes the wave speeds in the
formation with the substituted fluids.

Biot-Gassmann equation, which is identical to the low-

frequency limit of the Biot theory (Biot, Ref. 8), relates the Figure 4 Gas evaluation
properties of the wet rock to the dry-rock frame properties.
The error caused by frequency dispersion for sonic Figure 5 shows the effects of substitution in the same well
measurements is small and can be neglected. where the gas is replaced by water. Compressional slowness in
the gas zone is greatly decreased by the substitution.
The model allows us to estimate the effect of the pore fluid on
the elastic moduli. All the effect is on the bulk modulus. The
shear modulus is independent from the pore fluid.

The effect at partial saturation is more complicated (Knight and

Nolen-Hoeksema, Ref. 9). At low frequency, Wood's law, a
linear mixing law for compliance, adequately provides the
effective properties of the fluid mixture. But at sonic
frequencies the effect is more complicated, and Wood's law no
longer applies on the distribution of different fluid phases in
the pore space. An empirical mixing law is used instead (Brie
et al., Ref. 10).

The fluid substitution can be preformed:

• to compute average matrix and dry clay properties from

ELAN formation evaluation results,
• to evaluate hydrocarbon saturation from sonic slownesses,
• to remove pore fluid effect and evaluate frame properties
for rock mechanics evaluation,
• to replace the pore fluid present at log time (invaded
zone) by other fluid combinations, either to reproduce the
original reservoir conditions, or to simulate other
Figure 5 Fluid Substitution
situations for AVO modeling
4 H. CAO, T. ENDO, H. YAMAMOTO, D. CAO
AVO modeling
AVO modeling is to compute the CDP gathers and AVO
attributes for a given 1D velocity model. In this case, the
seismic model is built from the observed and calculated sonic
and density logs, after calibration from borehole seismic data.
Figure 6 shows forward modelled logs of DTc, DTs, RHOB
and Vp/Vs along with the raw logs over a sand known from
tests to contain nearly 100% water. The saturation inversion
found very little gas. Notice the agreement between the
measured and water-replaced DTc logs, and between the
measured and water-replaced Vp/Vs ratio logs.
Figure 6 Synthetic sonics after fluid substitutions
Well seismic provides some vital information in the
construction of 1D models. Sonic logs are measured at
thousands of Hertz whereas the surface seismic data are
measured at tens of Hertz. It is well known that integrated
sonic transit times are usually different from the seismic travel
times. These differences are quantified and corrected by well
seismic in which both the depth and travel time are accurately
known. Furthermore, sonic logs are normally not available in
the shallow section of a well and they are extended to the
surface using well seismic information.
Figure 7 shows seismic CDP synthetics after NMO correction
for the cases of 100% water- and gas- saturated sands,
generated using a primaries-only ray-trace modeling algorithm.
Notice the increasing pull down (delay) of events for the gas
synthetic due to the decreased compressional velocity in the
gas sands. The near offset reflections and the brightening with
offset are both increased for the gas model.
SPE 72160
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
Figure 7 AVO modeling results with fluid substitution
Seismic Attribute Analysis and Classification
The task of Seismic Attribute Analysis and Classification is to
predict reservoir properties where there are no wells and
interprets horizons accurately and completely. When wells are
available, the analysis characterizes the seismic data at the
well and correlates the seismic data to reservoir properties at
the well location using a set of attributes (e.g. AVO attributes)
that capture the seismic information. This includes the use of
crossplot analysis to determine which attributes can be used to
separate data into distinct classes, and multivariate statistical
techniques to achieve classification - the integration of several
seismic attributes.
Grid-based seismic attributes (computed along or between
time interpreted horizons) are better able to capture subtle
lateral changes in seismic signal present in 2D, 3D and 4C
seismic data. Specific attribute sets, based on polynomial trace
reconstruction are used for seismic facies and fluid mapping.
On the other hand, new structural attributes based on image
processing techniques enhance lateral discontinuity to capture
subtle faults not identified by standard seismic interpretation
techniques.
Global inversion of large sets of seismic attributes for
reservoir parameters is obtained from seismic classification.
On the one hand, the natural clustering present in the input
data set is assessed (unsupervised classification) and on the
other hand, clustering analysis can be calibrated by well data
providing reference (or training) data to define the output
classes (supervised classification). Both approaches are
commonly applied for facies (porosity), fluids and fault
mapping.
SPE 72160 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION - INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION OF BOREHOLE DATA AND SURFACE SEISMIC DATA
Several classification algorithms can be utilized including
geostatistical and neural network methods.
Classification outputs are:
• Discrete class maps (all points assigned to user desired
number of classes).
• Distance (or probability maps indicating geostatistical
distribution within each class.
3D attribute cubes or sections include:
• Reflectivity cube or section and space variant wavelet
extraction (stochastic deconvolution for improved vertical
and lateral seismic facies resolution)
• Attenuation and Textures cubes (for amplitude
independent seismic facies mapping)
Figure 8 shows an example of 3D AVO classification where
3D classified cube was filtered to remove the non-reservoir
classes and show only the hydrocarbon patches (red as gas,
green as oil and magenta as light oil). The background is a 2D
section from the 3D seismic cube. This combined display
indicates how the bright spot anomaly seen on the 2D seismic
section is separated in classes honoring the fluid and reservoir
parameters observed at the reference well.
Reference well
Figure 8 3D AVO classifications
Conclusions
The integrated interpretation of well logs and surface seismic
combines the complementary strengths of the two independent
measurements. The well logs are of high-resolution in depth,
whereas the surface seismic data are of high resolution in
space. The combination of these two measurements creates
significant synergy and provides a new dimension in reservoir
evaluation and characterisation.
The integrated approach adds value to both the well logs and
the surface seismic. The well logs provide the means for the
accurate quantitative interpretation of surface seismic data.
The surface seismic provides the means to spatially extend the
accurate reservoir parameters from the well logs.
5
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our colleagues throughout
Schlumberger whose hard work and dedication over the years
have resulted in the development of various interpretational
methods.
References
1. Gregory, A.R., Fluid saturation effects on dynamic elastic
properties of sedimentary rocks: Geophysics (1977) 41, 895-
921.
2. Murphy, W.F., Schwartz, L.M., Hornby, B., Interpretation
physics of Vp and Vs in sedimentary rocks: SPWLA, Annual
Logging Symposium, Midland, June 1991.
3. Castagna, J.P. and Swan, H.W., Principles of AVO
crossplotting: The Leading Edge (1997) 16, 337-342.
4. Pedersen, S.H., and Rhett, D.W., A Parametric Study of
Compressional and Shear Wave Velocities in Ekofisk Reservoir
Chalk: SPE/ISRM Eurock, Trondheim, 1998.
5. Mavko, G., The rock physics handbook: tools for seismic
analysis in porous media: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
6. Castagna, J.P., Petrophysical imaging using AVO: The Leading
Edge (1993) 12, 172-178.
7. Ross, C.P. Effective AVO crossplot modeling: A tutorial:
Geophysics (2000) 65, 700-711.
8. Biot, M.A., Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid
saturated porous solid. I. Low frequency range. II. Higher-
frequency range: J. Acoustics Soc. Am. (1956) 28, 168-191.
9. Knight, R., Nolen-Hoeksema, R., A laboratory study of the
dependence of elastic wave velocities on pore scale fluid
distribution: Geophys. Res. Let. (1990) 17, 1529-1532.
10. Brie, A., Pumpuri, F., Marsala, A.F., and Meazza, O., Shear
sonic interpretation in gas-bearing sands: Paper SPE 30595 in
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exibition, Dallas, TX,
1995.